[the] crimes of terrorism and conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.” 167 The private hearing in this proceeding was held from May 19 to June 9, 1993. 168 102. On June 18, 1993, the “faceless” Lima Superior Court of Justice, in a judgment concerning several of the accused, decided to acquit Ms. J. “owing to lack of evidence […] for the charges brought against her for the crime of terrorism and conspiracy to commit a terrorist act against the State,” indicating that she should “be released immediately.” In that judgment, 11 of the accused were convicted, 17 were acquitted, and the proceedings were held in reserve against 65 persons. 169 103. In particular, with regard to Ms. J., the Lima Higher Court of Justice took into account that: “[t]he accused denies the charges”; the accused “states that the building on Las Esmeraldas adjoining Palermo was up for sale or rent”; the accused indicated that the record of the search by the representative of the Public Prosecution Service establishes that “when she arrived on the day of the police operation, ‘there were only two girls,’ referring to [Ms. J.] and Mery Morales Palomino”; the accused indicated that “there was a contradiction between the record [of the search of the building on Las Esmeraldas and other search records] which mention the same time as that at which the building on Las Esmeraldas Street was raided] and also, with a difference of mere minutes, the same representative of the Public Prosecution Service appears in other searches in different and distant places”; “according to the testimony of the carpenter Dimas Tembladera Vilca […] the said premises were totally unoccupied and he had worked there for three months according to the contract that appears [in the case file]”; “according to a document […], the said accused signed a contract with WGBH-TV, a Boston public television station, as production assistant for a documentary on Peru”; “they obtained […] permission to operate from the Military Region”; “the weapons seized in the home of the accused […] were acquired by her father for self-defense”; “the father of the accused, […] in his testimony, […] corroborated his daughter’s statement with regard to the weapons, adding that the bullets and cartridges found with them also belong to him”; the accused “denies emphatically that she is the owner or possessor of the compromising documentation attributed to her”; the accused denies “knowing Luis Durand Araujo, who she had never seen before, [and] the latter, also accused […] corroborates this version, clarifying that he was arrested in the Parque de Lince,” and “the case file contains the expertise [on the handwritten documents found], which concludes that this writing does not correspond to the said accused.” 170 The judgment finds that: [H]aving assessed the evidence provided, it must be established that, although the charges are specific and based on seizures of subversive material ready for distribution, the exculpatory evidence and other documents are of such consistence that they weaken the charges to the point that doubt arises and, consequently, the judge must apply the said benefit in this case. 171 167 Decision of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of February 1, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 46, folios 3764 and 3765). The same day, the decision was notified to Ms. J.’s lawyer. Cf. Notification of the decision of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of February 1, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 47, folio 3767). 168 Cf. Record of the hearing on May 19, 1993 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 19, folios 4753 to 4756); record of the hearing of June 2, 1993 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 20, folios 4758 to 4767); record of the hearing of June 7, 1993 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 21, folios 4769 to 4784), and record of the hearing on June 9, 1993 (file of annexes to the State’s brief of June 24, 2013, annex 22, folios 4786 to 4796). 169 Cf. Judgment of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of June 18, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 48, folios 3784 and 3785). 170 Judgment of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of June 18, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 48, folios 3773 to 3775). 171 3775). Judgment of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of June 18, 1993 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 48, folio 33